Conspiracies

[dougplumb]

"In any case I wonder if the Campaign For Liberty would qualify as a conspiracy."

Its not on TV so it must be a conspiracy.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I can prove what I say. I don't care if you don't like it.

Doug,

You better like the posting guidelines of OL enough to adhere to them if you want to post here.

This is my last warning.

Michael

[dougplumb]

Exactly what don't you like about my post ? What did I say exactly that you dis approve of ?

Are you offended by how I expose how these cops treat children ?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Doug,

I am not going to fall into bickering and switch-and-bait on posting behavior and policy.

I've made my point as clearly as I can. It is not negotiable.

You choose how you wish to act.

If you have any doubts, please reread what is already up.

Michael

[dougplumb]

I get your point: Its OK for me to be insulted by other posters on the forum, but if I point out the absurdly ridiculous and what some may call obscene behaviour of this "system" I get called out. There is nothing I have said that I cannot back up, I have nothing to be ashamed of in my posts.

A lot can be seen about a system in how it treats its children, and when you get cops strip searching 8 year olds and arresting them for having plastic knives something is seriously wrong and people had better wake up.

If you need to kick me off this forum for saying that, then fine.

[Brant Gaede]

With your energy Doug, why not start your own forum?

--Brant

[dougplumb]

I wouldn't find any more evidence supporting the official version of 9/11 there than I could here.

[Jonathan]

As far as the moon landing goes, I don't believe anything I see on TV.

Now that's interesting. Douhg doesn't believe anything that he sees on TV, but he does believe what conspiracy theorists have told him to see in lossy, compressed images which are about one-eighth to one-fourth the resolution of what was shown on TV.

Most people on this forum have shaped their beliefs around what they have seen on TV, but I am an objectivist and a rationalist.

If I were to shoot four separate videos of the same person, and in the third one I used a different angle, different lighting, and a different exposure, which resulted in the image being darker and having more contrast, do you think that it would be objective and rational for someone to claim that the third video is not of the same person because his beard is darker than in the other videos? Or would such analysis reveal the analyst's ineptitude?

No one has proven to me that the moon landings were real. Known liars have used the moon landings to their benefit.

Likewise, no one has proven to me that the WTC towers actually fell. In fact, no one has proven to me that the buildings ever existed in the first place, and a lot of know liars were among the people who claimed that they existed. Reports of their existence and destruction could have been a huge conspiracy to trick the American people.

J

Edited May 23, 2009 by Jonathan

[Jonathan]

I think people need to buckle up and look at the actual evidence.

My, there's a thought. Rather than being dismissive, or talking about spaceships and JFK and such? I like doing that too, but isn't fiction so much fun, in that respect?

This isn't fun--this is a long effing way from being fun.

Rich,

Why are you being dismissive of my theories about spaceships and JFK? Instead of investigating my claims, you just arbitrarily dismiss them as fiction because you can't handle the truth? Have you done any reading on theories about alien technology and the reanimation of celebrity corpses?

J

[dougplumb]

Johnathan: "Now that's interesting. Douhg doesn't believe anything that he sees on TV, but he does believe what conspiracy theorist have told him to see in lossy, compressed images which are about one-eighth to one-fourth the resolution of what was shown on TV."

No, I don't watch many of them. I read and research mostly for myself - things like the Club Of Rome Documents, bits of Tragedy and Hope, writings of HG Wells, Bertrand Russell. Its all right there is front of you if you choose to look.

Johnathan: "If I were to shoot four separate videos of the same person, and in the third one I used a different angle, different lighting, and a different exposure, which resulted in the image being darker and having more contrast, do you think that it would be objective and rational for someone to claim that the third video is not of the same person because his beard is darker than in the other videos? Or would such analysis reveal the analyst's ineptitude?"

I think if one of the shots showed someone with a smaller nose then that would suggest that it was a different person than the rest. That video is a whole other topic. They guy in the video is right handed and bin Laden is left handed - or visa versa. There is a huge list of problems that expose that video as a fakery. Plus there is no audio so it doen't mean anything anyways.

Johnathan: "Likewise, no one has proven to me that the WTC towers actually fell. In fact, no one has proven to me that the buildings ever existed in the first place, and a lot of know liars were among the people who claimed that they existed. Reports of their existence and destruction could have been a huge conspiracy to trick the American people."

I suppose that is possible ... I saw the world trade center buildings in NY before they were blown up. I know of people personally that have seen the place where they were before that evil terrorist mastermind bin Laden attacked. Mostly the media doesn't lie, in fact they lie by omission. They talk about only one theory of what happened on 9/11 and not the rest of the theories that are better supported in the scientific community.

[Jonathan]

I think if one of the shots showed someone with a smaller nose then that would suggest that it was a different person than the rest.

Okay, so please provide links to the specific images to which you're referring. If the nose of the person in question is smaller, we'll be able to measure it. Please clearly identify which image contains the person who you have concluded has a smaller nose, and identify where the images came from.

I suppose that is possible ... I saw the world trade center buildings in NY before they were blown up.

How do you know that you saw them? What if you only saw holographic projections, or maybe cardboard cutouts that someone pasted to a window that you were looking through? After all, from what I've seen so far, it's very easy for people to fool you visually.

I know of people personally that have seen the place where they were before that evil terrorist mastermind bin Laden attacked.

Those people could be in on the conspiracy! They can't be trusted! Don't tell them anything!

Mostly the media doesn't lie, in fact they lie by omission. They talk about only one theory of what happened on 9/11 and not the rest of the theories that are better supported in the scientific community.

The conspiracy theorists whom you've been relying on could be in on it too! Maybe the real truth is that the conspiracy is bigger than even you had imagined! Maybe the government just wants you to believe that the buildings existed and were destroyed!

J

[dougplumb]

Maybe you will come up with some evidence that supports your position on things.

Check out Mike Riveros' "WhatReallyHappened.com". I think he knows a little bit about video.

Edited May 23, 2009 by Doug Plumb

[Brant Gaede]

I wouldn't find any more evidence supporting the official version of 9/11 there than I could here.

So, you're leaving?

--Brant

[Selene]

Ummm Doug:

As a teacher of debate, I should remind you that you have the obligation to present a prima facie case with definitions of terms, arguments supported by evidence and a conclusion which will cause the status quo to have to respond.

I am as objective a judge of argument as you will find. Can I be wrong, absolutely.

It is you, the affirmative that has to discharge his burden of proof because the status quo, which you admit to, on the proposition:

Resolved that: The "9/11 incident" did not happen as the "official" report/finding states.

Go ahead please, give me your definitions of the terms in the proposition.

Or re-draw the proposition and submit it.

This is at least a process which I can begin to "argue" with or "agree" with your arguments.

Fair enough?

Adam

Edited May 23, 2009 by Selene

[dougplumb]

So Selene, you are saying that the government version should be accepted as true unless otherwise proven ?

I always thought it was the governments job to prove their theory since it is their theory that is being disputed. Or do we start with the axiom "government is good" ? and work from there ?

My case rests on the speed and manner in which wtc1 & wtc2 collapsed and the collaborating expert testimony. My case rests on the fact that wtc7 looks exactly like a conventional controlled demolition in every aspect such as that presented on www.ae911truth.org. This has always been why I have believed 9/11 to be an inside job from the start.

My case rests on the fact that the official version of events has absolutely no evidence and a story that is constantly changing. Jim Hoffman explains this in the Guns and Butter interviews. My case rests on the fact that the other side has done nothing but cheat and steal to enrich their own friends and pocket books and that their word is not reliable. I do not believe Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George Bush or Barrack Obama. I think they are obviously untrustworthy.

[dougplumb]

I am not formally schooled in the art of debate, nor am I a mathematician but I know 2+2 isn't 5.

[galtgulch]

I am not formally schooled in the art of debate, nor am I a mathematician but I know 2+2 isn't 5.

Et al,

I marveled at the WTC buildings and did take the elevator up to the observation level. It was a spectacular view all around and very impressive. So I know it existed.

I did study engineering before I went to medical school and recall watching a documentary which included commentary by the architect about details of its design, how the heat and trauma of the plane caused the cheaper insulation to come off the beams, how the heat of the fire caused the bolts to weaken and give.

My wife and I witnessed the attack as it happened after the first plane had gone into the north tower and we saw the second plane go into the south tower.

What is still a mystery is building seven which went down without being assaulted.

Also what was on the mind of the ticket person in Boston Logan Airport to drop all protocols to rush the cash paying, one way ticket buying, no luggage carrying, Middle eastern profiled hijackers onto the plane in the first place?

This country is not paranoid enough. Not to mention the failure of the FBI and the NIA to communicate. Sad, inept government which can't do the one thing it is supposed to do while squandering trillions on doing everything else it has no business doing.

Enough people are fed up that there will be a "blowback" of sorts in the form of new candidates for every office by Campaign For Liberty supporters all over the country. I have no trouble persuading intelligent, hard working people to join.

www.campaignforliberty.com 23May 2PM 154,014, 10PM 154080

gulch

Edited May 24, 2009 by galtgulch

[dougplumb]

Jim Hoffman does a great job in explaining how the gov theories around wtc1 and wtc2 collapse cannot be correct.

[Selene]

Umm Doug:

First of all, that is the second time you used that 2+2=5 argument and it did not work the first time.

Here is what I am stating to you:

There are rules to math. There are rules to baseball. There are rules to debate.

I am inviting you to debate.

Just as you cannot run to third in baseball or get 5 when you add two plus two in math...debate has rules.

You are willing to learn yes.

By the rules of the process I am inviting you to engage in, the following is the status quo.

The status quo is men landed on the moon.

The status quo is the John Fitzgerald Kennedy was assassinated by a single gunman who fired three shots, two of which struck the President, one of them fatally.

The status quo of the "9/11 incident" [which is the most objectively that I can phrase it, but would be willing to "re-term" the "event" for the goal of having a better proposition] is that four commercial airliners were intentionally flown into the World Trade Center Towers, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania by nineteen (19) agents of al-Qaeda causing the deaths of 2,974 individual human beings.

Therefore, you can either accept the terms, reject the terms or propose modifications of the terms.

Those are the conditions upon which I, as an objectivist and rational human, am willing to engage in intellectual "business on this issue on this forum" with you.

The choice is yours.

Adam

[dougplumb]

Selene:"The status quo of the "9/11 incident" [which is the most objectively that I can phrase it, but would be willing to "re-term" the "event" for the goal of having a better proposition] is that four commercial airliners were intentionally flown into the World Trade Center Towers, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania by nineteen (19) agents of al-Qaeda causing the deaths of 2,974 individual human beings."

If that is to be the status quo, then why ? Where is the supporting evidence ? Should we believe it because George Bush tells us it is so ? Where is the grounding for this story ? Does it rest on the unassailable character of the US government ?

Three buildings collapsed straight down through a path of greatest resistance, this is impossible by the second law of thermodynamics which dictates that objects fall through the path of least resistance. Fire does not burn hot enough to make this happen, many fires in steel framed structures have occurred both before and after 9/11 and none of them collapsed. The world trade center building (one of the towers) was on fire for 4 hours in 1975 and there was NO structural damage. That fire burned hotter and longer than the 9/11 fires.

Fuel doesn't burn very hot at STP. (standard temp and pressure)

The buildings were solid after the crashes, they remained standing perfectly upright. There was no damage on anywhere near the scale that would cause the buildings to fall. By far, the greatest force buildings like this experience is that from wind, not gravity. They are built incredibly strong and the designer of the buildings considered that a plane may crash into them one day and allowed for this contingency. Several planes could have crashed into those buildings and they still would have stood. The number of experts supporting this hypothesis is too many to even list here.

Fires would not have weakened the steel to failure. The government story on what happened is loaded with contradictions.

Only controlled demolition can make this happen. It was a controlled event.

[Selene]

Doug:

You are a complete and utter disappointment.

I am done.

Adam

[dougplumb]

How about this as a starting point: The government did 9/11, you must prove that 19 terrorists did it with supporting evidence. So far this thread has no evidence supporting the official version and piles of it supporting the alternative. You wish to spike the debate with an assumption that has no known basis in reality.

This is how a responsible citizen should look at it, always being suspicious of government. Governments should NEVER be trusted.

[Rich Engle]

Rich,

Why are you being dismissive of my theories about spaceships and JFK? Instead of investigating my claims, you just arbitrarily dismiss them as fiction because you can't handle the truth? Have you done any reading on theories about alien technology and the reanimation of celebrity corpses?

Oh, for heaven's sake, now that was just uncalled for. No reason for baiting, and that wasn't even very good. C'mon, man, either talk about an idea or hit the bricks on the thread. See, this is every bit as nasty as anything MSK is getting ticked about. Probably one of them. It seems like gratuitous sabotaging. Not nice.

Jeez, Louise... I can't believe this.

Ah, keep plowing.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Rich,

The problem is when accusation junkies get on a roll, it's like when I was addicted to crack. The only way to stop is to stop. But that doesn't solve much because the craving goes on and it is all-consuming.

Still, I think things will start settling down (I hope). I believe in the goodness of people when they choose goodwill.

I know where you are at, so I know you're caught in the middle.

I suggest, for the present, taking Jonathan's quip as a friendly jab in the ribs and not outright contemptuous mocking. I don't speak for him, but if you do as I suggest and treat it on that level, I would wager good money (and I am sure I would win) that wishing you well and playfulness is exactly what you will find behind it.

Jonathan has a thing for consistency when people make affirmations. Especially affirmations judging others. It's funny, but I see the same things about consistency that he does. I always have. He has also communicated (to me and online), more than once, acknowledgment of the human condition and willingness to laugh off lapses when others do likewise. (This includes lapses by himself and by others.)

In other words, the standard is rational and knowable. But we all sometimes slip and fall on our butts in our actions. You laugh it off, correct yourself and move on. That is how I understand him. (Let him correct me if I am wrong.)

But when people dig in and try to prove at all costs they were right about something inconsistent and that—behavior-wise—their standards are for others, but not for them, his satire gets lethal (and this is when I normally split a gut).

I don't think he is there with you. Nowhere near there. But he will poke you in the ribs...

And I will chuckle...

Michael

[Alfonso Jones]

How about this as a starting point: The government did 9/11, you must prove that 19 terrorists did it with supporting evidence. So far this thread has no evidence supporting the official version and piles of it supporting the alternative. You wish to spike the debate with an assumption that has no known basis in reality.

This is how a responsible citizen should look at it, always being suspicious of government. Governments should NEVER be trusted.

Doug Plumb -

Is this your way of saying that you're not confident that you could build a case that "the government did 9/11?"

The notion that 19 terrorists did it has been pretty well accepted. It is clearly the incumbent theory. You can no more expect to take a conspiracy theory such as "the government did 9/11" and have it treated as the incumbent than you can expect us to take "the moon is made of green cheese" as an incumbent theory.

Are you familiar with the notion of the arbitrary assertion, as dealt within Objectivism? Try Lecture 6 in Peikoff's The Philosophy of Objectivism, or in OPAR, pages 163 - 171.

I urge you - - - take a specific conspiracy theory, perhaps your favorite one. Stick to that one. Build the case with facts, specific ones.

Bill P